From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga12.intel.com (mga12.intel.com [192.55.52.136]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10FE1A3; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 16:03:01 +0200 (CEST) X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga004.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.38]) by fmsmga106.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 08 Apr 2019 07:03:01 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.60,325,1549958400"; d="scan'208";a="289723067" Received: from aburakov-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.252.26.147]) ([10.252.26.147]) by orsmga004.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 08 Apr 2019 07:02:58 -0700 To: David Marchand Cc: Ray Kinsella , Thomas Monjalon , techboard@dpdk.org, Bruce Richardson , dev , Kevin Traynor References: <455a61b4-891d-eaaf-d784-2be884bcacbd@intel.com> <7166381.CkH77a7QuE@xps> <5e27f573-bbf5-30f1-73ee-d35fc5191632@ashroe.eu> <6a9bf695-b287-9e5e-358c-d6c3f93db045@intel.com> From: "Burakov, Anatoly" Message-ID: Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2019 15:02:57 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-techboard] DPDK ABI/API Stability X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2019 14:03:02 -0000 On 08-Apr-19 2:58 PM, David Marchand wrote: > On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 3:39 PM Burakov, Anatoly > > wrote: > > As a concrete proposal, my number one dream would be to see > multiprocess > gone. I also recall desire for "DPDK to be more lightweight", and i > maintain that DPDK *cannot* be lightweight if we are to support > multiprocess - we can have one or the other, but not both. However, > realistically, i don't think dropping multiprocess is ever going to > happen - not only it is too entrenched in DPDK use cases, it is > actually > quite useful despite its flaws. > > > Well, honestly, I'd like to hear about this. > What are the real usecases for multi process support? > Do we have even a single opensource project that uses it? > I'm aware of a few closed source usages of multiprocess. I also think current versions of collectd rely on secondary process (there's been a Telemetry API added to avoid that, but AFAIK the support for Telemetry is not upstream in collectd yet), and so do/would any dump-style applications - in fact, we ourselves include one such application in our codebase (pdump, proc-info, etc.). > > -- > David Marchand -- Thanks, Anatoly From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by dpdk.space (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F799A0096 for ; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 16:03:05 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FCE94CA6; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 16:03:03 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mga12.intel.com (mga12.intel.com [192.55.52.136]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10FE1A3; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 16:03:01 +0200 (CEST) X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga004.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.38]) by fmsmga106.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 08 Apr 2019 07:03:01 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.60,325,1549958400"; d="scan'208";a="289723067" Received: from aburakov-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.252.26.147]) ([10.252.26.147]) by orsmga004.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 08 Apr 2019 07:02:58 -0700 To: David Marchand Cc: Ray Kinsella , Thomas Monjalon , techboard@dpdk.org, Bruce Richardson , dev , Kevin Traynor References: <455a61b4-891d-eaaf-d784-2be884bcacbd@intel.com> <7166381.CkH77a7QuE@xps> <5e27f573-bbf5-30f1-73ee-d35fc5191632@ashroe.eu> <6a9bf695-b287-9e5e-358c-d6c3f93db045@intel.com> From: "Burakov, Anatoly" Message-ID: Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2019 15:02:57 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed" Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-techboard] DPDK ABI/API Stability X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" Message-ID: <20190408140257.32wHLNN_RiWFivB1tykfd-b1O9a2Zm9XUe4k3vvetvI@z> On 08-Apr-19 2:58 PM, David Marchand wrote: > On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 3:39 PM Burakov, Anatoly > > wrote: > > As a concrete proposal, my number one dream would be to see > multiprocess > gone. I also recall desire for "DPDK to be more lightweight", and i > maintain that DPDK *cannot* be lightweight if we are to support > multiprocess - we can have one or the other, but not both. However, > realistically, i don't think dropping multiprocess is ever going to > happen - not only it is too entrenched in DPDK use cases, it is > actually > quite useful despite its flaws. > > > Well, honestly, I'd like to hear about this. > What are the real usecases for multi process support? > Do we have even a single opensource project that uses it? > I'm aware of a few closed source usages of multiprocess. I also think current versions of collectd rely on secondary process (there's been a Telemetry API added to avoid that, but AFAIK the support for Telemetry is not upstream in collectd yet), and so do/would any dump-style applications - in fact, we ourselves include one such application in our codebase (pdump, proc-info, etc.). > > -- > David Marchand -- Thanks, Anatoly